Let’s start with a simple thought experiment. You invite a guest into your house, give him a room, and make all your facilities available to him. You find him a job — it might be one that needs to be done, it might not — but if he runs into difficulties or loses his job you provide him with the wherewithal he requires. Eventually he brings his family over for an extended visit which turns out to be permanent and before you know it an entire part of your house has been sealed off or, as in some instances, has become a domestic no-go zone.
Your new guests refuse to participate in your home life. They deplete your budget, may not even learn your language, install a V-chip in your computer to prevent the normal range of your communications, and in the course of time begin agitating to introduce a new set of house rules which you, the proprietor, are expected to abide by. It is quite possible that you return one evening to discover that your kids have been traumatized and the house is in shambles. It may happen as you set off for work in the morning, you find your car has been torched.
Clearly, the allegory may not be exact in all its particulars, though it is on the whole a valid, if somewhat lurid, picture of what goes by the name of multiculturalism. What we call “multiculturalism” is not to be construed as identical to “diversity.” The former allows the ethnocratic retention of the in-group’s language, justice system, customs, and politics in semi-autonomous enclaves, as, for example, the 751 zones urbaines sensibles in France, Tower Hamlets in London and Bury Park in Luton, so-called “no drive areas” like Kreuzberg in Berlin, off-limit areas in Brussels, Amsterdam’s Slotervaart district, the Rosengard quarter in Malmo, and many other high-risk neighborhoods in cities across the face of Europe, most virtual Islamic republics and many prone to communal violence; the latter assumes the orderly and beneficial mingling of different peoples in the public agora, which is the case with most immigrant communities. When we say “multiculturalism,” we mean primarily a social project which approves of the voluntary segregation of many Muslim communities to pursue a life apart from, and all too often hostile to or in actual conflict with, the heritage lifestyle that has welcomed them.
The original theory was that something like a social paradise could be created by good will and horticultural sentiment alone. The garden metaphor became extremely popular. Liberals were convinced that their vision of society as a sort of trellised garden, sheltering a great variety of exotic plants all jumbled together and left uncultivated, would enable its inhabitants to flourish without root competition. But this was a merely emotional construct that would lead in practice to rampant parasitism and the degradation of the spirit of cultural autonomy and integrity. It is as if we were moving down the phylogenetic scale toward a condition of simplistic psychic organization, resembling James Cameron’s Navi worshipping their holy tree in a fictional Pandora. Indeed, what the Swiss legionnaire poet Arthur Nicolet wrote of his country soon applied to the West in general.
L’Helvetie est un paradis
Ou l’esprit marche à quattre pattes.
(Switzerland is a paradise
Where the spirit walks on four feet.)
In any event, one of the most bizarre aspects of multiculti is that so preposterous a situation was long regarded as acceptable, morally justifiable, and even inevitable. Such behavior on the part of the proprietor, gradually surrendering deed and title to an interloper with no lien whatsoever on the property, furnishes a practical illustration of mental deterioration, if not a working definition of galloping obtuseness. And that it took more than a generation before the owner of the house, or his inheritors, began even to consider the prospect of self-restitution, of reclaiming one’s property from a guest who was on his way to taking possession of the premises, may offer a sliver of hope but, given what looks like an approaching fait accompli, not much consolation.
Still, better late than never, as one says, though better early than late would have been preferable. Anyone with a single grey cell in his head would have realized at the outset that the multicultural experiment, as originally conceived, was a social cul-de-sac, a license freely given for the seizure of natural rights and eviction of the host from a portion of his dwelling — perhaps, ultimately, to become a paying, second-class occupant in what was once his own house.
The issue is compounded, however, by a powerful liberal-left orthodoxy that has invested its self-importance, ideological convictions, and intellectual life, if not its very survival, in maintaining the multicultural burlesque. This is especially the case with the European Union which, as Andrew Bostom writes, “is a corrupt and undemocratic superstate with totalitarian aspirations” that needs millions of Muslim immigrants “to secure the power base for the unaccountable bureaucrats who now oversee what passes for European governance.” In America as well, dissent is being quashed “in schools and on college campuses, and politically incorrect expression is cause for dismissal from both public and private employment” (email communication). A restraining order recently issued by a U.S. district court against Oklahoma’s anti-shari’a law is another case in point. In effect, challenging the multicultural paradigm is a good way of tempting professional suicide or official retribution.
Thus, the hysterical reaction among the denizens of the left to German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s tardy but clear-headed and realistic assessment that multikulti “has failed, utterly failed.” She was, of course, alluding to Germany’s restive Muslim/Turkish immigrant population. Thilo Sarrazin, anti-Islamic author of the recently published Deutschland schafft sich ab (Germany Does Away with Itself), was unceremoniously fired from his executive post at the Deutsche Bundesbank, despite the polls that indicate he has the popular will on his side. Austrian “whistleblower” Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Woolf is currently being prosecuted by the Austrian government for conducting public seminars on the menace of Islam. Of course, the trial and trials of Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who wishes to restore his country to a semblance of sanity, to take back the house, as it were, has become an international flashpoint. “Europe is running adrift,” remarked Oskar Freysinger, leader of the Swiss People’s Party, in a recent lecture to the Flemish Parliament, “not because of fanatics who occupy the land, but because of cowards who let them do it.” They have permitted “beachheads of Islam” in what Muslims designate as the territory of the infidel, in other words, the countries to which they have emigrated. There can be little doubt that Muslim “emigration” (or “immigration”) is a politically correct euphemism for “infiltration.”
We are now on very delicate ground as we try to address the central question, which is: what to do? We are a liberal democracy and are bound to uphold the axial principles that sustain it: freedom of speech and of the press, freedom of assembly, the dispensation of impartial justice, habeas corpus, the right to civil and legal protections. These are codes and scruples that cannot be easily bent or violated in endeavoring to deal with the problem. Additionally, we have a degenerate and poorly educated political echelon and a cynical left-wing media apparatus that have together risen to the defense of the same Muslim groups who have exacerbated the dilemma from which we suffer. Multiculturalism is, for them, a sacred cow that must be worshipped, fed, and given dung-freedom in our thoroughfares.